Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

gunderwood wrote:You're such a partisan hack that I'm beginning to suspect you would have voted for Obama if he ran as a Republican.

He did. He went by George W. Bush that time.

Kreutz wrote:If the GOP became the part of civil rights (for everyone. Including pushing to end the asinine "war on drugs" and take on the military and prison industrial complexes to prove their fiscal ducks are in order) and went back to the big tent thing they'd be unstoppable.

Agreed. A platform of fiscal conservatism would connect very well with the younger crowd, because they have entered the job market during the latest recession, and because they will inherit this fiscal mess.

The middle ground, which is what the winning party captures, is currently made up of people that have an open mind about personal freedom and liberties (i.e. they align with libertarians), they don't necessarily like all the entitlements and social programs (i.e., they align with libertarians), and they are worried about the nation's debt (i.e., they align with libertarians). Yet, when KC loses next month (which he will), Sarvis will be blamed.

Couldn't agree more on getting abortion and other social issues out of the national spotlight. Save these debates for smaller venues.

Let me say first that I think abortion is one of the most barbaric acts still tolerated by western cultures. I'm amazed that progressives, who cheer for all of the advances in the treatment of women and children of the last couple centuries fight so hard to maintain *their* right to take a life.

That said, I also believe in my absolute sovereignty over my own person. I believe others should enjoy the same, even if that means making choices I find repugnant. Drugs, tattoos, masturbation, pink hair, saggy pants, whatever. If it doesn't harm YOU, then STFU.

If you think the government has a role in regulating what any human does within the confines of their own body, then you're just another shade of statist/progressive. You can't claim you're for "freedom" and self-reliance, then throw out a list of exceptions.

If God himself thought that the element of free will was so important, who are we to intervene in the actions of another person exercising it? He *will* sort this all out in the end.

ratherfish wrote:
I don't care WHO the anti progressive candidate is! I don't have to be 100% in agreement with an anti progressive candidate. We must defeat the progressive agenda!

Vote for the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE THAT CAN WIN!

This is getting stupid!

+1

Someone from the Progressive/Commie side of the aisle asked "What would you do if you ran into Terry Mac at a gunshow?"

My first response was "Am I held to the standards of a polite Southern Gentlemen?"

I have no points to concede to him, I would simply say "Hello, excuse me. I have better matters to attend." and walk away.

mamabearCali wrote:The Commercial I saw sponsored by Cuchinelli said that he was not in favor of limiting a womans access to contraception...If you want to know his position on things I suggest you go to his campaign page.
http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/

I went there. There's no stated position on contraception. There's no stated position on abortion. There's no stated position on his stance on 18.2-361. There's no stated position on 18.2-344.

^^^ Given the importance of this issue, and his lack of statement on it on his own website, I am sure you can glean what his response would be if he were taught to tell the truth about it.

Yes. Yes I can.

Contraception is such a non-issue. Has been for about 40 years. I know of no one, not even the most conservative candidate I have ever heard, of who want to limit a persons access to contraception. But once the deed is done, one the child is conceived, is it a separate entity who deserves protection under the law. The planned parenthood ad is basically saying contraception = abortion so being against one is to be against the other. Simply not true. If a person wants to attempt to thwart a baby from being formed that is very different from killing one that has already been created.

Now in his personal life he may not use contraception. That may be a matter of his faith, but just because he does not use it does not mean that he wants to limit a person's access.

Human life is either worth protecting by law, or it isn't. If it isn't then we are all disposable to someone.

mamabearCali wrote:
Human life is either worth protecting by law, or it isn't. If it isn't then we are all disposable to someone.

+1

Its amazing. I understood that in 1st grade. Why our legislators and people cannot understand it is beyond me

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

gunderwood wrote:

ratherfish wrote:We know very well what the progressive/democraps have in mind.

Amazing you're not against them and with each other.

Sometimes independent/libertarian means sheeple when you can't agree on the GOAL and win like the liberals.

I don't care WHO the anti progressive candidate is! I don't have to be 100% in agreement with an anti progressive candidate. We must defeat the progressive agenda!

Vote for the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE THAT CAN WIN!

This is getting stupid!

You're such a partisan hack that I'm beginning to suspect you would have voted for Obama if he ran as a Republican.

I'm a partisan without a party.

CONSERVATIVE!

How many LIBERALS have the unelectable LIBERTARIANS put in office??? They're a significant voting block when considered with the chosen frosen who don't vote to feel above the frey!

Libetarians have much in common with conservatives... after all the progressives would just as well place us both blindfolded against the wall for their final solution.

BTW did You vote for the libertarian and elect OBUMMER???????

No that's a hack!

Remember libertarians...

"STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES"

Like B HO? You'll LOVE McASS!

ratherfish wrote:Remember libertarians...

"STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES"

Like B HO? You'll LOVE McASS!

This is exactly the empty, hateful rhetoric I've come to expect from you.

...or from a crusty douche nozzle.


Vote Sarvis. He loves your guns more than Cooch does.

Yes...

If "stupid is as stupid does" fits I can't really help .

"Douche nozzle" however NOT full and friendly rhetoric so it must be just another case of "do as I say and not as I do"!

Beats taking responsability for electing B HO I guess.

Doubt you'll take responsability for electing McBloomberg either...

...and if you continue to exude the same kind of stuff as the artifact I cited, nobody can help you. Not even you, since you won't hold yourself accountable for your own inflammatory dung slinging.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SpanishInquisition wrote:Vote Sarvis. He loves your guns more than Cooch does.

Were I a single issue voter, sure.

But I'm not.

For me overall quality of life>guns.

EXACTLY!


SI I have heard you bring up one red herring issue after another strait from the McAzzhat adds flooding everyone's televisions. They are explained to you at length and it's like you never absorb a word.

SARVIS CAN NOT WIN.

KC Has been the AG pushing hard to apply the legally founded law of the land. Did he invade your bedroom? Did he take your birth control pills? Did he send a State Trouper to haul you off before you could get your birthday BJ? LOL

Does nothing matter but the ideology?

Not even preserving our gun laws????????

Man we actually agree on a lot, but we don't agree on that!

At this point you are going to vote for who you are going to vote for. Will angels sing if Cuchinelli is elected....nope. Will the devil take VA by storm if McAwful is elected.... possibly (if the R's lose the legislature too). Is Sarvis going to be elected.......not a chance.

So whoever you are going to vote for I plead with you to make the effort to vote.

Now if McAwful goes into power I fully expect the rest areas to be shut down again, but such is life.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Back to peeing in a bottle!


Or do you have to go the route of a progressive in Texas filibustering for abortion?